Both sides claim victory as Fair Elections Act clears the Commons

Late Tuesday, MPs stood in the House of Commons to vote on third reading of Bill C-23, sending it to the Senate, which is expected to speedily pass it, leaving only the formality of royal assent.

On Thursday, when the government brought in time allocation to limit debate on the bill, Democratic Reform Minister Pierre Poilievre declared victory.

“The Canadian people widely support this bill,” he said. “It is a very popular piece of legislation. We won the debate on it and now we will pass it into law.”

On Monday, the NDP said they won the debate, rallying opposition to C-23, forcing the government to accept changes.

“What was at the beginning a very bad bill is simply today only a bad bill,” NDP Leader Tom Mulcair said.

Either way, the long, strange process by which the Fair Elections Act — or Unfair Elections Act, as the opposition calls it — is coming to an end, and the most significant piece of legislation in this session is about to be law, not quite as either side intended.

NDP leader Tom Mulcair speaks about the Fair Elections Act to party members in Ottawa. (THE CANADIAN PRESS/Adrian Wyld)

The story begins in March 2012, at the height of the robocalls scandal, when NDP MP David Christopherson moved a motion calling for the government, within six months, to strengthen Elections Canada’s investigation capabilities, giving the agency power to “request all necessary documents from political parties to ensure compliance with the Elections Act,” and establish a robocall registry.

The Conservatives, keen to put the robocall scandal behind them, voted for the motion. Other scandals took centre stage, the six-month deadline quietly slipped by, and nothing happened until April 2013, when then-democratic reform minister Tim Uppal announced he would table a bill. Uppal’s bill was ready to go, but at the weekly Conservative caucus meeting, MPs objected to sections, and the Tories shelved it.

The bill did include a robocall registry, as promised, but it did not expand the powers of Elections Canada, as promised. Instead, it proposed to move the investigators away from Elections Canada, something that, Conservative sources say, was not part of Uppal’s bill.

Poilievre went on a communications offensive, doing rounds of interviews, tirelessly pushing carefully composed sound bites that promised “sharper teeth, a longer reach and a freer hand.” The initial reaction was positive, but as academics and lawyers went through the fine print, they found many changes that seemed designed to help the Conservatives.

NDP MP Libby Davies attends a small rally held in opposition of the Fair Elections Act in Vancouver, B.C.. (THE CANADIAN PRESS/Darryl Dyck)

The NDP pushed back hard. Mulcair was told the bill was too obscure to get through to the public, Democratic Reform critic Craig Scott said Monday.

“He didn’t care how hard a sell this was going to be to the public,” Scott said. “It was bad legislation; indeed, it was awful legislation.”

The NDP pushed for cross-country hearings. When the Tories said no, the NDP withdrew approval for all committee travel, killing long-planned foreign trips for MPs from all parties.

When the bill went to committee, Christopherson began a filibuster, testing the patience of Conservative MP Tom Lukiwski and his colleagues. The NDP tried to rally public opposition with online campaigns, and Mulcair went after the prime minister in the House day after day.

Throughout, Poilievre kept arguing that the bill was “terrific,” tirelessly countering NDP arguments and doing media interviews, sticking with an argument that most Canadians agree with — voters should have to show ID.

John Allen West, also known as Rainbow John, speaks at a small rally held in opposition of the Fair Elections Act in Vancouver, B.C.. (THE CANADIAN PRESS/Darryl Dyck)

The government stumbled in March, when Conservative MP Brad Butt had to admit misleading the House with fanciful stories about voter fraud, leading to uncomfortable questions about the justification for tightening ID rules.

After Christopherson’s filibuster, when the committee started hearing witnesses, all the experts agreed with the opposition. Early last month, former auditor general Sheila Fraser came out guns blazing. The Tories tried a tentative counter-attack and were shouted down.

Conservative MPs admit they started to hear from concerned constituents.

Immediately after the parliamentary break that followed Fraser’s comments, Poilievre climbed down, proposing amendments to some of the most controversial elements.

The bill no longer gags the chief electoral officer. It provides a mechanism for people to vote who don’t have addresses on their IDs.

It still proceeds with the reorganization of the investigators and forbids Elections Canada from promoting voting among low-turnout groups. It doesn’t, as promised, strengthen Elections Canada investigation capabilities.

But the bill has undergone the most substantive amendments of any piece of legislation since Harper won his majority, breathing life into a committee process that this government often treats as a formality, so both sides can declare victory.